My Contention;
Life of any kind only acquires value where it has an interest in its existence. Because of this fact, killing a fetus is morally acceptable because the fetus has no interest in its own existence.

I'm willing to change my position at any time on any issue. I have done so in the past. All you need is a logical, provable case, and I'm all in. The question is, have you got what it takes?

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." --Noam Chomsky

Generally speaking, every justification for the eating of meat will also justify the rape of a 6 year old.

My Contention;
killing a fetus is morally acceptable because the fetus has no interest in its own existence.

But a fetus is a human correct? One that began with the start of a Human sperm entering into a Human egg right? I mean thats how humans are born, its not like a dog sperm can pregnate a woman right, if it did we would end up with another micheal moore. So that means the fetus is Human right?

How do people with no morals comprehend how to do this? It is acceptable for them to kill…end of story. They in no way could see the side of life…that a pro-lifer would see…it would be impossible. They operating from two different operating systems….sorta like the PC and MAC.

Please refrain from attacking pro-choice people and ONLY attack MY ARGUMENT.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Now does this include potty mouths? You usually swear and use profanity….is that allowed? LOL

We can include swearing if you wish. I will refrain from swearing.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Who says?

Logic.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

So if I was to say a newborn has less right to live than a one year old…I would be right? I would imagine that I am older..than you, so I have more right to life. I have existed longer…and have more of a longing to hold on….so killing you would be more moral than killing me. I have more interest in my existence….I am older and more aware of my surroundings.

You havent understood the contention. Read it again. Value of your existence is not contingent on age - I never said this. You are attacking a strawman.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

I will make it earlier…..abortion kills a living human being. If it didn't abortion would not be needed….as it would grow. Terminate….same as kill. The abortionists only goal……to kill the life inside any way he/she can.

You are again mistaken. An abortion doesn't WANT to kill - he/she simply accepts the logical right of the, mother to kill the fetus IF she wants to.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Could you use the word KILL just for grins and giggles?I assume you meant womb….as you said whom? I will not debate using only the term terminate. You sound like your terminating cockroaches…or turning off electricity. The abortionists goal is to KILL….THAT IS THE TERM THAT SHOULD BE USED. I AM SURE SEEING YOUR SUCH AN OPEN MINDED INDIVIDUAL WOULD NOT MIND…YOUR PRO-ABORTION AND SHOULD WEAR THE PRO-ABORT LABEL PROUDLY…KILLING IS A GOOD THING FOR YOU GUYS.

Ok, let me rephrase for your pleasure:

"So for this debate, abortion refers to the killing, that is ending of the life/existence/capacity to live of a fetus when it is still in the womb via means accepted by the mother. All other topics are thus irrelevant and all other applications of the term abortion and or perceived relevant meanings are not apart of this debate."

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Not so with you moral relativists. If you think what is ethical is killing and I don't…no middle ground. And I don't think that on this issue your side stands on ethical grounds.

Explain how it doesn't stand on ethical grounds.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

And impossible as I don't think people who are pro-abortion have morals in this area. This view would taint all others….moral situations as our view on life defines who we are.

Ok so what? Of course this shapes all other ethical considerations - but so what? Do you object to this ethical position? If so, why?

Originally Posted by churchmouse

We can never agree on this…our world views are polar opposites. You say you are an atheist so therefore you make up morality as you see it…I don't I believe in God and mine are set. I think we should use science…because on morality we can never come to agreement.

Why cant we come to an agreement? Do you not think your ethics are logical? If you use logic, or think you do, then you are on the same turf as me for saying what is right and wrong. Atheism, which I do not endorse, has nothing to do with my ethical position. If you are religious, you must prove why the religious position is correct. Dont run away - you need to validate your claims.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Characteristics that you don't have…

Yes, I do else I wouldnt be talking here. You also have these characteristics - no fetus does.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

as recognizing that the life growing in the womb is human with its own DNA and identity that is NOT PART OF THE WOMAN. This scientific factual information you dismiss. I think you are irrational in your beliefs on this.

Could you elaborate on this point since I cannot make our your line of argument. Could you state your contention here clearly so I cna respond?

Originally Posted by churchmouse

I have an interest in every living human beings existence….you pick and choose who you think is worthy. Again polar opposites.

Wrong. Only those beings with an interest in their existence have a right to life. If you disagree, debate my logic that justifies this.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

I have a basic respect for all human life and see a definite difference between human life and animal life. Now I know you don't agree…no one who was a Peter Singer follower would agree…therefore a human life is equal to that of a fly.

Not quite. A human life isnt equal to anything remember.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Again we can't agree world views and values poles apart….no meeting ground.

Indeed but this doesnt mean I cant prove your position illogical and thus wrong.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

But then there is the biological proof that half the fetus' DNA belongs to the father….he is just nothing however and an non issue.

Correct because it isnt his body the fetus lives in.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

The fetus is affected as…..the hired killers job is to Kill it.
So abortion should be legal throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy…an anything less would be to enslave her…right?

Correct.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Don't use the word moral…as we can't agree to what morality really is.

Do you not agree what is moral is that which is logical.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Bravo….you used the correct terminology….KILL. Could we also say…expanding this a bit further….killing anyone in comas…or the mentally handicapped etc…would also be fine?

Yep. Anyone without an interest in their existence. The others however have their own conditions as the fetus does so its often not that clear cut - as with coma particularly.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Can a one year old….comprehend its existence? How about a three year old?

Yes and yes.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

A mentally handicapped person? NO….can we say then by your definition that a parent or grandparent should be able to kill them?

Yes if the parents of the child consent and it is shown the child has no self-awareness or capacity to realize it is alive.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Again killing anything human that can't quite grasp awareness of everything you state…would be on your axe list.

Pretty much.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Yes there ya go…..a fish is more aware then a human child. Wow.

Medical fact.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

But why add the three months in the womb…you say it nothing until its aware of its surroundings….probably somewhere around one and three years old.

They obtain awareness after birth. Forget about the three months point, that was just to say that abortion should not be painful for the fetus, but it seems irrelevant to our discussion at this point.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Based on what you said in this thread any debate with you would be worthless…especially when you bring people like Singer into this. If he is your guru guy…be my guest…I dismiss him as a nut job.

If you wish to dismiss him as a nutjob please validate this action by explaining, as an argument, why this position is false.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Yes….especially when it is growing quietly and safely in its mothers womb and has done nothing to warrant being sucked out alive….torn into pieces…etc.

It would care either way - it doesnt even know its alive.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Yes. That is what you don't get.

Make me get it - give an argument. Provide an argument and contention or go away please.

I'm willing to change my position at any time on any issue. I have done so in the past. All you need is a logical, provable case, and I'm all in. The question is, have you got what it takes?

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." --Noam Chomsky

Generally speaking, every justification for the eating of meat will also justify the rape of a 6 year old.

But a fetus is a human correct? One that began with the start of a Human sperm entering into a Human egg right? I mean thats how humans are born, its not like a dog sperm can pregnate a woman right, if it did we would end up with another micheal moore. So that means the fetus is Human right?

Yes, totally.

ps. I agree about Michael Moore.

I'm willing to change my position at any time on any issue. I have done so in the past. All you need is a logical, provable case, and I'm all in. The question is, have you got what it takes?

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." --Noam Chomsky

Generally speaking, every justification for the eating of meat will also justify the rape of a 6 year old.

So for this debate, abortion refers to the termination of a fetus when it is still in the whom. All other topics are thus irrelevant and all other applications of the term abortion and or perceived relevant meanings are not apart of this debate.

So for this debate, abortion refers to the termination of a fetus when it is still in the whom. All other topics are thus irrelevant and all other applications of the term abortion and or perceived relevant meanings are not apart of this debate.

whom would that be?

That's a stupid typo on my part. It should read womb.

I'm willing to change my position at any time on any issue. I have done so in the past. All you need is a logical, provable case, and I'm all in. The question is, have you got what it takes?

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." --Noam Chomsky

Generally speaking, every justification for the eating of meat will also justify the rape of a 6 year old.